Learn how intensive intervention, through the data-based individualization (DBI) process, helps students with severe and persistent learning or behavioral needs.

What is Intensive Intervention
Learn how NCII defines intensive intervention and the steps of the data-based individualization (DBI) process.

Intensive Intervention & MTSS
Learn how intensive intervention fits within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS).

Intensive Intervention & Special Education
Learn how intensive intervention supports the identification, individualized education program (IEP) development, and provision of specially designed instruction for students with disabilities.

Review and compare the technical adequacy and implementation requirements of academic and behavioral assessments (screening and progress monitoring) and interventions to select tools that meet your needs.

Identifying Assessments
Learn about and access resources related to the different types of assessments (screening, progress monitoring, and diagnostic assessments) that are part of the data-based individualization (DBI) process.

Sample Lessons & Activities
Find sample lessons and instructional videos focused on supporting students with mathematics difficulties in the areas of number systems/counting, basic facts, place value concepts, place value computation, fractions as numbers, and computation of fractions.

Sample Strategies
Find behavioral strategies organized around antecedent modification, self-management, and reinforcement to support teachers working with students with primary academic deficits and challenging behaviors.

Taxonomy of Intervention IntensityLearn how the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity can be used to evaluate and intensify interventions to meet student needs and find resources to support implementation.

Find tools, training materials, videos, webinars, and other resources to support you in your role implementing intensive intervention.

State and Local Leaders
Find tools and resources to support implementation of intensive intervention for school, district, and state administrators and staff responsible for leading MTSS and special education initiatives.

Educators
Find tools and resources to support general and special education teachers, interventionists, school psychologists, school counselors, and other school-based personnel working with students with intensive academic and behavioral needs.

Trainers and Coaches
Find tools and resources to help trainers and coaches support professional learning about intensive intervention.

Higher Education Faculty
Find tools and resources to help college and university faculty support developing, modifying, or enhancing coursework and field experiences related to implementation of intensive intervention.

The READ 180 instructional model facilitates a blended model of instruction with clear organization for the classroom.

READ 180 leverages adaptive technology to individualize instruction for students and provide powerful data for differentiation to teachers. Respectful of students of all ages, READ 180 is available in three Stages each with rigorous, age-appropriate content: Stage A (Grades 4—6), Stage B (Grades 6—8), and Stage C (Grades 9 and Up).

READ 180 is intended for use in grades four through high school. The program is designed for students with disabilities (particularly behavioral disabilities), English language learners, and any student at risk of academic failure. The academic areas of focus are reading (including phonological awareness, phonics/word study, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and spelling) and handwriting (including spelling, sentence construction, and planning and revising).

READ 180 is currently used in all 50 states and in over 40,000 classrooms. There are over one million active students’ licenses currently being used every day.

Cost: READ 180 pricing is determined by the number of students being served and number of classrooms set up. At the basic level, the cost is $43,000 for a Stage of READ 180 service of 60 student licenses. READ 180 can also be purchased for 30 students.

Initial cost per student for implementing program: Year 1: $716 per student (based on 60 students)

Replacement cost per student for subsequent use: Year 2 and Beyond: $29.95

Licenses are sold on a perpetual basis.

Volume discounts are available.

Included with Purchase of License:

Teacher Materials

Implementation Training

Leadership Materials

Leadership Training

Student Materials

READ 180 is designed for individual students and small groups. Class size for READ 180 should be 15-24 students, with three small groups of 5-8 students.

READ 180 is a blended instructional model, where a third of the class is on the computer during the small group rotations. Therefore, the number of computers depends on the number of students in the READ 180 classroom.

The program requires training for the instructor over the course of a few days. The teachers in READ 180 receive two full days of in-person training in order to implement the program.

Scholastic provides comprehensive professional development in person and online. Scholastic provides two-and-a-half days of in-person professional development with the purchase of a complete stage of READ 180.

Embedded professional development resources – a collection of professional development strategies is embedded within all of the teacher’s materials.

Additional resources exist for READ 180 teachers – Purchase of READ 180 includes a one-year subscription to the online course Best Practices in Reading Intervention.

The minimum qualifications of the instructor are that they are a professional, but the program does not assume the instructor has expertise in a given area.

Training manuals and materials are available by READ 180. The READ 180 training materials and teacher implementation guides are reviewed by Scholastic consultants and field-tested by consultants who work with teachers using READ 180 across the country.

Risk Status: Students scoring below 1 standard deviation of the district norm on the reading subtest of the state assessment were identified as being at risk for academic failure. This criterion resulted in cutoff scores that ensured that all students were identified by the state as “partially proficient”, which is the lowest category possible on the state assessment.

Demographics:

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

905

53.7%

782

46.3%

0.25

Grade 7

213

47.5%

235

52.5%

0.01*

Grade 8

232

55.2%

188

44.7%

0.28

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Race-ethnicity

African-American

740

51.2%

705

48.8%

0.06

American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

576

54.2%

485

45.7%

0.22

White

Other

Socioeconomic status

Subsidized lunch

1,015

53.7%

877

46.4%

0.00*

No subsidized lunch

Disability status

Speech-language impairments

Learning disabilities

Behavior disorders

Intellectual disabilities

Other

Identified with a disability

543

52.7%

486

47.2%

0.96

Not identified with a disability

ELL status

English language learner

149

56.7%

114

43.4%

0.19

Not English language learner

Gender

Female

Male

786

53.1%

693

46.9%

0.70

The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Analytic Group 2 (2 years exposure)

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

905

53.7%

782

46.3%

0.25

Grade 7

213

47.5%

235

52.5%

0.01*

Grade 8

232

55.2%

188

44.7%

0.28

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Race-ethnicity

African-American

740

51.2%

705

48.8%

0.06

American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

576

54.2%

485

45.7%

0.22

White

Other

Socioeconomic status

Subsidized lunch

1,015

53.7%

877

46.4%

0.00*

No subsidized lunch

Disability status

Speech-language impairments

Learning disabilities

Behavior disorders

Intellectual disabilities

Other

Identified with a disability

543

52.7%

486

47.2%

0.96

Not identified with a disability

ELL status

English language learner

149

56.7%

114

43.4%

0.19

Not English language learner

Gender

Female

Male

786

53.1%

693

46.9%

0.70

The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Analytic Group 3 (3 years exposure):

Program

Control

p of chi square

Number

Percentage

Number

Percentage

Grade level

Kindergarten

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

Grade 6

Grade 7

Grade 8

385

54.1%

327

45.9%

Grade 9

Grade 10

Grade 11

Grade 12

Race-ethnicity

African-American

206

52.4%

187

47.9%

0.33

American Indian

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

171

56.1%

134

43.9%

0.36

White

Other

Socioeconomic status

Subsidized lunch

No subsidized lunch

Disability status

Speech-language impairments

Learning disabilities

Behavior disorders

Intellectual disabilities

Other

Not identified with a disability

473

55.4%

381

44.6%

0.09

ELL status

English language learner

34

65.4%

18

34.6%

0.09

Not English language learner

Gender

Female

Male

218

56.6%

167

43.4%

0.14

* Since all participants are 8th grade students, SAS program is unable to generate chi square significant test. The impact analysis adjusted for all of the above demographic variables by using them as covariates.

Training of Instructors: Teachers were provided with training on the use of the curriculum. In addition, teachers received ongoing coaching and feedback, related to fidelity and quality of implementation, by trained district resource teacher coordinators.

Design:

Did the study use random assignment?: Yes.

If not, was it a tenable quasi-experiment?: Not applicable.

If the study used random assignment, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures used as covariates or on pretest measures also used as outcomes?: Yes.

If not, at pretreatment, were the program and control groups not statistically significantly different and had a mean standardized difference that fell within 0.25 SD on measures central to the study (i.e., pretest measures also used as outcomes), and outcomes were analyzed to adjust for pretreatment differences?: Not applicable.

Were the program and control groups demographically comparable at pretreatment?: Yes.

Fidelity of Implementation:

Describe when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: No classroom observations were conducted. Extant data were used to measure fidelity of implementation. Four components were measured: (1) teacher attendance at training, (2) class size, (3) the frequency of ongoing assessment (number of SRI administrations), and (4) the duration and frequency of use of the instructional software. Data for the first two components were obtained from district records. Data for the last two components were obtained from software usage reports. Because these data were extant, the calculation of inter-rater reliability is impossible (i.e. multiple raters were not used). Moreover the use of extant data provides objective and reliable indicators of fidelity.

Provide documentation (i.e., in terms of numbers) of fidelity of treatment implementation: Each treatment classroom (n=21) receives a fidelity rating for each of the four components described above. The fidelity ratings range from 1 (low fidelity) to 4 (high fidelity). These components are then combined into an overall school-level fidelity score. Data for each fidelity component is provided below.

Teacher attendance at training- 40% of new teachers in year 4 were categorized as having ‘full participation’. The remaining 60% of teachers had ‘moderate participation’ (Note: there are only 3 categories for fidelity in this component due to the maximum number of training days)

100% of treatment classrooms had fewer than 21 students, resulting in a fidelity level of ‘high’ for this component for all classrooms.

100% of treatment classrooms administered a minimum of 3 SRI assessments during year 4, resulting in a fidelity level of ‘high’ in this component for all classrooms.

The duration of use of instructional software has two sub-components; the number of sessions per week, and the duration (in minutes) of each session. Software must be used a minimum of three times a week for 15 minutes each time for a classroom to receive a ‘high’ fidelity rating. 71% of classrooms received a ‘low’ rating for this component. 19% received a ‘low-to-moderate’ rating. 1% received a ‘moderate-to-high’ rating. No classroom received a ‘high’ fidelity rating.

For the school-level overall fidelity scores, 40% of schools received a ‘high’ rating and the rest received ‘moderate-to-high’.

Measures Targeted:

Measures Broader:

Targeted Measure

Score type & range of measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program instructional content

Not applicable

Broader Measure

Score type & range of measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program instructional content

SAT-10

Scale scores
Range: 100 - 787

KR-20 = 0.89
This assessment was standardized using a nation-wide representative sample of students in 2002

The program targets the skills measured by the vocabulary, reading comprehension, and language arts (mechanics, language expression) subtests.

If you have excluded a variable on data are reported in the attached document, explain rationale for exclusion: School attendance was originally an outcome, but was dropped because it is unlikely to be affected by the treatment program.

Effectiveness: No studies of READ 180® that fall within the scope of the Students with Learning Disabilities review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of READ 180® on students with learning disabilities.

Program Outcomes: Five studies of READ 180 met inclusion standards. Two of these had statistically significant positive effects in comparison to control groups, qualifying READ 180 for the ESSA “Strong” category. These were studies in Western Massachusetts (effect size =+0.18) and Milwaukee (effect size =+0.14). A Florida study found positive outcomes for students at moderate risk, but negative effects for students at high risk, with an average effect size of +0.12. Studies in Newark (NJ) and Memphis found no differences. The average effect size across all studies was a modest +0.08.

Woods, D. E. (2007). An investigation of the effects of a middle school reading intervention on school dropout rates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.